In a recent blog entry where I asked questions about scribal habits, Wieland Willker pointed me to an article by Peter Head. The article is short (10 pages) and easy to read -- I should know, I read it tonight, and it got me thinking. That's why I have to blog this now, otherwise my mind will be racing and I won't get much sleep tonight.

One of the papyri that Head discusses is P.Oxy XV.1781,* which has some content from Jn 16.14-30. One of his conclusions (sorry to ruin it for those of you who haven't read the article) is that in papyri of this era (2nd-3rd centuries) omission is a more common scribal blunder (intentional or not) than addition.** So I thought P.Oxy XV.1781 would be good to discuss because it has a notable omission in Jn 16.23-24. It was also good for me to look into further because I have access to a copy of Oxyrhynchus Papyri XV and could look further into what was going on. Note I'm using a pseudo-uncial (that is, all-caps) style here; Greenfell & Hunt are all lower-case. Brackets are from Greenfell & Hunt:

[P.Oxy XV.1781 lines 34-36, Jn 16.23-24]
...
ΑΝ ΤΙ ΑΙΤΗ[Σ]ΗΤΕ [ΤΟΝ ΠΡΑ ΔΩΣΕΙ ΥΜΕΙΝ
ΕΝ ΤΩ ΟΝ[Ο]ΜΑΤ[Ι ΜΟΥ ΑΙΤΕΙΤΕ ΚΑΙ
ΛΗΜΨΕΣΘΕ Ι[ΝΑ Η ΧΑΡΑ ΥΜΩΝ Η
...

Now, P.Oxy XV.1781 is corrected at the foot of the page. So someone recognized the issue and offered a correction on the bottom of the page. Here's that, which is slightly different (word-order wise) from NA27. Note that I can't assume the actual lines of the papyrus here, the line breaks are my own.

[P.Oxy XV.1781 Jn 16.23-24 (correction inline, bold text is added)]
...
ΑΝ ΤΙ ΑΙΤΗΣΗΤΕ ΤΟΝ ΠΡΑ ΔΩΣΕΙ ΥΜΕΙΝ
ΕΝ ΤΩ ΟΝΟΜΑΤΙ ΜΟΥ ΕΩΣ ΑΡΤΙ ΟΥΚ
ΗΤΗΣΑΤΕ ΟΥΔΕΝ ΕΝ ΤΩ ΟΝΟΜΑΤΙ ΜΟΥ
ΑΙΤΕΙΤΕ ΚΑΙ ΛΗΜΨΕΣΘΕ ΙΝΑ Η ΧΑΡΑ ΥΜΩΝ Η
...

For comparison, the NA27 has the following. Note that text omitted from P.Oxy XV.1781 is bold in the below text.

[NA27, Jn 16.23-24]
... ΑΝ ΤΙ ΑΙΤΗΣΗΤΕ ΤΟΝ ΠΑTΕΡΑ ΕΝ ΤΩ ΟΝΟΜΑΤΙ ΜΟΥ ΔΩΣΕΙ ΥΜΙΝ ΕΩΣ ΑΡΤΙ ΟΥΚ ΗΤΗΣΑΤΕ ΟΥΔΕΝ ΕΝ ΤΩ ΟΝΟΜΑΤΙ ΜΟΥ ΑΙΤΕΙΤΕ ΚΑΙ ΛΗΜΨΕΣΘΕ ΙΝΑ Η ΧΑΡΑ ΥΜΩΝ Η ...

I should offer a disclaimer: I'm not a text critic, but I play on on the internet.*** I have zero training apart from reading the basics (Metzger, Aland & Aland, and some other stuff). But I understand the basic lingo.

Of this particular situation in P.Oxy XV.1781, Head writes:

This is most plausibly attributed to confusion caused by the repetition of ΕΝ ΤΩ ΟΝΟΜΑΤΙ ΜΟΥ at either the beginning of successive lines in his exemplar (homoioarcton) or at the end of successive lines (homoeoteleuton). (Head, 404).

Head is a little more cautious than Greenfell & Hunt, who describe the error as:

The first sentence of verse 24, εως αρτι ... ονοματι μου, was originally omitted owing to homoeoteleuton. This mistake has been corrected at the foot of the page, where l. 35 has been rewritten in a smaller and probably different hand with the missing words incorporated. A symbol calling attention to the correction was presumably entered in the right-hand margin. (Greenfell and Hunt, 12)

So, the question I asked myself: Assuming the corrected version of P.Oxy XV.1781 reflects the exemplar, how could the scribe have made this mistake? Should be easy to find out. Let's make the second assumption that the error is due to homoeoteleuton (same ending of line), as Greenfell & Hunt suggest.

[P.Oxy XV.1781 Jn 16.23-24 (assumed exemplar w/homoeoteleuton)]
...
ΑΝ ΤΙ ΑΙΤΗΣΗΤΕ ΤΟΝ ΠΡΑ ΔΩΣΕΙ ΥΜΕΙΝ ΕΝ ΤΩ ΟΝΟΜΑΤΙ ΜΟΥ
ΕΩΣ ΑΡΤΙ ΟΥΚ ΗΤΗΣΑΤΕ ΟΥΔΕΝ ΕΝ ΤΩ ΟΝΟΜΑΤΙ ΜΟΥ
ΑΙΤΕΙΤΕ ΚΑΙ ΛΗΜΨΕΣΘΕ ΙΝΑ Η ΧΑΡΑ ΥΜΩΝ Η
...

Here, the thought is that while the scribe was copying the end of the first line, his attention wandered to the identical text beneath it (which would line up better in the MS), and continued from there. Here is the same text, this time assuming homoioarcton (same beginning of line):

[P.Oxy XV.1781 Jn 16.23-24 (assumed exemplar w/homoioarcton)]
...
ΑΝ ΤΙ ΑΙΤΗΣΗΤΕ ΤΟΝ ΠΡΑ ΔΩΣΕΙ ΥΜΕΙΝ
ΕΝ ΤΩ ΟΝΟΜΑΤΙ ΜΟΥ ΕΩΣ ΑΡΤΙ ΟΥΚ ΗΤΗΣΑΤΕ ΟΥΔΕΝ
ΕΝ ΤΩ ΟΝΟΜΑΤΙ ΜΟΥ ΑΙΤΕΙΤΕ ΚΑΙ ΛΗΜΨΕΣΘΕ ΙΝΑ
Η ΧΑΡΑ ΥΜΩΝ Η ...

And here, the thought is that as the scribe began the new line, his attention wandered down to the identical text below and he continued from there.

But isn't it also possible the scribe skipped the line on purpose? Here's the text in the ESV with the omitted part in bold:

²³ In that day you will ask nothing of me. Truly, truly, I say to you, whatever you ask of the Father in my name, he will give it to you. ²⁴ Until now you have asked nothing in my name. Ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be full. (Jn 16.23-24)

To answer that question, I'd guess one would have to examine the rest of the omissions and see what their character was. As this is a fragment, that's hard to do. The other omissions and differences mentioned are nothing of that sort; this is the only significant textual issue. The most logical explanation for the missing text is the obvious one: the scribe accidentally skipped a line.

Well? Which one was it? Homoeoteleuton or Homoioarcton? Both are possible. I don't know which one it was; but that doesn't really matter now, does it? The cool thing is seeing how an inadvertent error such as this one happened. It also appears to represent the problem(s) of homoioarcton and homoeoteleuton fairly clearly, so if you didn't know those words before, now you can use them in conversation sometime today. (really, try it!) And it was fun to think through to boot.

Update (2005-07-13): In the comments, Dr. Carl Conrad points out that in talking about scribal errors, I've unwittingly committed one. A common blunder for those who type in Greek Beta Code, I had 'ΞΑΡΑ' instead of 'ΧΑΡΑ'. The above has been corrected. Thanks to Dr. Conrad for bringing it to my attention. That particular error is common enough that we really need to come up with a fancy Latin name for it.

Update II (2005-07-13): Eli Evans leaves a comment with a good point. I was imprecise in my language when questioning whether the omission was intentional. So, I've changed "the scribe skipped a line" to "the scribe accidentally skipped a line" to remove ambiguity.

* P.Oxy XV.1781. Let me demystify the abbreviations. 'P.Oxy' is the standard abbreviation denoting "Oxyrhynchus Papyri". The roman numerals represent a volume number. In this case, it's vol. XV, which was published in 1922. The '1781' is the papyrus number. This citation informs one to look up papyrus 1781 in volume 15 of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri volumes. Please be aware that, unfortunately, this one isn't on the Oxyrhynchus site. To confuse matters, this particular papyrus is also known as P⁵ in the context of New Testament textual criticism. So, in textual apparatuses like the NA27 or UBS4 editions, you'll see P⁵, not P.Oxy XV.1781.

** Significant because one of the basic rules of textual critics is, as I understand it, to "prefer the shorter reading". That is, many think scribes were more apt to add text to smooth things over, so the shorter reading (when a variant occurs) may therefore make more sense to consider. Head is saying that in papyri of this era, one cannot make that jump to the shorter reading; or at least not that easily. A preference for a shorter reading, if appropriate, must be justified on other grounds.

*** Flashbacks to American TV commercials in the 1980s (?). Scene: Guy staring into bathroom mirror, we see him waist-up from the back. Voiceover: "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV ... " He then goes on to give medical advice, schlepping some pharmaceutical. That's how it went, as I recall. My recollection in such things has proven wrong in the past, however.